New from Cambridge University Press!

Sociolinguistics from the Periphery "presents a fascinating book about change: shifting political, economic and cultural conditions; ephemeral, sometimes even seasonal, multilingualism; and altered imaginaries for minority and indigenous languages and their users."

This is a book on epistemic modality in Italian and in general. It is organized into 9 chapters and a conclusion. Chapter 1 introduces the ''notional category of epistemic modality''. In this chapter, epistemic modality is distinguished from related categories and concepts, such as deontic modality, mood, illocution, reality status and evidentiality. Furthermore, the relationship between modality and subjectivity is discussed in some detail. The author views modality essentially as a pragmatic category, and concludes in defining it as ''[a] performative category expressing the speaker's genuine opinion towards the modalized proposition'' (p. 39) (it should be noted here that this definition is strictly speaking circular, as it already contains the term ''modalized''). Chapter 2 provides ''a typological classification of epistemic systems.'' Drawing on data from Palmer (1986), Pietrandrea (P) identifies five parameters along which epistemic modality in a specific language can be characterized typologically: (1) ''specific vs. parasitic'' marking of epistemic modality, that is, whether a modal marker is specialized on marking epistemic modality or piggybacks on a different category, (2) degrees of certainty (e.g. necessity vs. possibility), (3) genuine epistemicity vs. inferential evidentiality, (4) the degree to which evidentiality is differentiated between direct vs. indirect, and reported vs. non-reported evidence, and (5) degrees of performativity.

It should be mentioned here that P shares an understanding of evidentiality increasingly common in European linguistics, in which evidentiality is seen as a notional category expressed in many markers that traditionally were viewed as epistemic modal markers. This notion of evidentiality contrasts with the notion advocated by other scholars such as Aikhenvald (Aikhenvald 2004), for whom only languages with a grammaticalized system of evidentiality, and obligatory presence of this category in the sentence, have evidentiality. Chapter 3 introduces ''epistemic modality in Italian'', identifying a large number of epistemic modal expressions in this language, among which only the modal verbs and the epistemic future (a mood) are classified as ''grammatical'' (p. 67).

Chapter 4 deals with ''semantic oppositions'' among these grammatical epistemic modal expressions. Deve 'must', for example, is said to express a higher degree of certainty than può 'can', and the same deve contrasts strongly with the epistemic future in that the former has a distinct evidential nature while the latter is the only purely (non-evidential) epistemic marker in Italian.

Chapter 5 offers ''a typological characterization of Italian epistemic modality'' along the parameters presented in Chapter 2. It adds to chapter 4 a more detailed view of the evidentiality of Italian epistemic modals, which, in the authors view, form a ''complex'' evidential system, distinguishing both direct vs. indirect evidence and reportive vs. non-reportive evidence.

Chapter 6 discusses ''inflectional and distributional constraints'' on epistemic modality. It shows the degree to which epistemic modal markers in Italian are constrained in their interaction with tense and person marking, and the degree to which they can occur in conditional and interrogative contexts. The relative freedom with which especially the modals can occur in such collocations and constructions points to their low perfomativity. According to P, this can be ascribed to the fact that ''in Italian evidential forms are borrowed and employed for the expression of epistemic modality.'' In other words, the author views the Italian epistemic modals as essentially evidentials.

Chapter 7 discusses ''aspectual constraints on the propositional contents''. Here it is claimed that epistemically modalized propositions have to be aspectually ''incomplete'', that is, they must either belong to the actional class of ''states'' in the sense of Vendler, or they must be marked as progressive, habitual or perfect. The notion of incompleteness builds on work by Desclés.

Chapter 8 continues this argument by claiming the ''metapropositionality'' of epistemic modality. In a layered structure of clause, epistemic modality only takes full propositions, which must be incomplete'' into as complements while deontic modality takes units of a lower layer as complements, namely predications, which are ''complete''. This fact is explained by a ''semantic projection'' of incompleteness by epistemic modal markers on their complements.

The last chapter, chapter 9, presents a diachronic hypothesis about the development of epistemic meanings in deontic modal markers. P contrasts four different assumptions about the semantic relation between deontic and epistemic modality in the same modal marker, namely homonymy (Palmer 1986), metaphoric change (Sweetser 1990 and others), conventionalization of conversational implicatures (Traugott 1989 and others), and context-driven interpretation (Heine 1995 and others). The last approach (by Heine) fits P's own research approach and her data best, and she essentially claims that ''the reinterpretation of modal operators is the result of a reinterpretation of their semantic scope from predicational to propositional'' (p. 187). It is remarkable, however, that the epistemic meanings are already present as far as P goes back in Italian/Latin language history (cf. p. 198). Therefore, it is not possible for P to make an argument based on the actual analysis of historical data, and she has to rely on internal reconstruction.

EVALUATION

Contents-wise, this book can be divided into three parts, namely chapter 1, which provides the definition of the topic, chapters 2 through 5, which delineate Italian epistemic modality, and the last three chapters, which deal with the interaction of modality with other categories, most notably aspectuality. In terms of quality, that is, as an evaluation, I would not hesitate to divide the book into a weak first part from chapter 1 to 3, which is fairly informative and interesting to read, but scores low in terms of rigor and analyticity, a strong part close to the end, from chapter 6 to 7, which offers fresh and intriguing data and hypotheses, and, finally, chapters 4, 5 and 8, which stand somewhat in between quality-wise. In the following few paragraphs, I will substantiate my evaluation, especially with respect to the weak and the strong chapters.

Chapters 1 to 5 are the general chapters of the book. They are worth reading because of the good command of the literature on modality from a functional perspective that the author displays, and her ability to pick out topics which are currently relevant, and present them concisely. Her conclusions are largely either common-sensical or intuitively acceptable. On the other hand, the manner these conclusions are reached and the arguments are built up is neither analytic nor rigorous. I'll give a few examples. On the first page of the first chapter (p. 6), the category of modality is introduced through quotes from Benveniste, Givón, Bally, and Palmer. This is done so in a manner as if these linguists were referring to the same concept. However, even if they used the same label, each of them had (or has) a different concept in mind. In particular, the concept of Bally is only partly compatible with the common concepts of modality in current linguistics. The confusion culminates on the top of the following page where the author contrasts ''modality'' with ''deontic modality'' and ''dynamic modality''. Is this also in the sense of Benveniste, Givón, Bally and Palmer? Later in this chapter the reader will learn that for the author only epistemic modality is true modality, and deontic modality etc. don't deserve the same label. This should have been clarified first, and then epistemic modality could have been relabeled as ''modality'' and new labels could have been used for deontic and dynamic modality. Also, it would have been interesting to know where Benveniste, Givón, Bally and Palmer converge in their concepts, and where they differ, and how the author's own concept contrasts to the others. Instead, uncertainty about the author's use of terms prevails throughout the introductory chapter 1, while from chapter 2 on, surprisingly, the traditional labels are used fairly consistently. Another remark is in place here about the author's use of the term ''irrealis.'' ''Irrealis'' is dismissed as a concept for the definition of modality (2.4.), but in doing so, the author seems to conflate irrealis as a form category and as a semantic concept. It is only in the latter sense that ''irrealis'' becomes a candidate concept for defining modality (cf. van der Auwera and Schalley 2004).

Chapter 2 promises a typological classification, but the term ''typological'' is used here in a very loose sense. Examples from a number of genealogically unrelated languages are offered, but largely they are second hand quotes taken from Palmer (1986) or other textbooks, and there is no indication that the choice of languages is systematic. Also, when it is stated that some phenomena are rare (e.g. languages with specific markers for epistemic modality), and others are frequent (languages with parasitic markers for epistemic modality), no numbers from specific language samples are provided. The reader is forced to believe the author instead of being invited to verify her evidence. In this chapter, specific marking of epistemic modality is contrasted with parasitic marking. However, a confusion of form and meaning categories seems to take place, as parasitic markers are characterized as ''auxiliary or semi-auxiliary modal verbs, generally used also for the expression of deontic necessity and deontic possibility; verbal moods; verbal tenses; clitics or non-affixed particles; complementizers'' (p. 41). Logically, there is no reason, why a clitic or non-affixed particle should not be a specific marker for epistemic modality.

Chapter 3 introduces a large number of epistemic markers, constructions and lexical items in Italian. Based on Lehmann (1985), the author presents a catalogue of criteria to decide which of them are grammaticalized. However, with the exception of a brief demonstration of tense inflection on capace che 'may' and si vede che 'I see' (p. 64-66), it is not shown how these criteria are applied, and only the conclusion on which of the forms are grammaticalized is provided. Showing the actual application of the criteria and its results would have immeasurably increased the value of this chapter, and the credibility of the conclusions provided.

I wish to close the critical part of my evaluation with a remark on P's definition of modality. It is entirely legitimate to define modality as a pragmatic notion, and in terms of ''speakers' opinions''. However, if it is done so, this definition should be followed through consequentially. If the defining criterion is the expression of speakers' opinions, then lexical and grammatical classes such as mental attitude verbs, epistemic adverbs and evaluative adjectives and constructions should be presented as the core of the category, and the question how far these expressions are grammaticalized or only lexical should not play a decisive role. This direction in modality studies has been pursued more consequentially by scholars like Maynard, e.g. Maynard (1993). Instead, the mental attitude verbs and the epistemic adverbs are mentioned but dismissed rather easily as non-grammatical (a point, which, at least in the case of epistemic adverbs would deserve closer investigation), and evaluative expressions are not mentioned at all. P very conventionally picks out the modal verbs and future mood marking as the typical epistemic markers. In order to do so, it would have been more appropriate to stick to a more conventional definition of modality, from a semantic, rather than a pragmatic point of view, based on concepts like factuality, validity or relativization of the proposition, e. g. Kiefer (1987)), Narrog (2005). The reviewer himself has raised the question before whether it is possible at all to define a grammatical category in pragmatic terms like ''speakers' attitudes'' or ''speakers' opinions'' (Narrog 2005). P's introductory chapters do not present a strong case in favor of such a definition.

The best part of the book comes in chapters 6 and 7. In chapter 6, finally some systematic language data are presented, showing, for example, the constraints on the use of Italian modals with respect to grammatical person. The hypothesis of the connection between epistemic modality and ''incompleteness'' presented in chapter 7, in the very terms in which the author defines it should be original to her, and has not been discussed in this explicitness in any other book in the functional literature on modality. However, the connection between different types of modality and aspectuality has already been explored from a different theoretical perspective, particularly by Abraham (e.g. Abraham 1995), but also by other authors -- see Leiss 2002: 75-76; P's book antedates Leiss' article (see below) -- and it would have been interesting to read how P's approach and conclusions differ from previous ones. Nevertheless, a detailed analysis of this topic from a functional perspective is still rare, and with this book, P has secured her place in a discussion which is certain to draw even more attention in the future. In this chapter, P presents a thorough theoretical discussion and a good number of tests and examples. In one central point, however, her hypothesis appears to be problematic, if not flawed. In analogy to Kiparsky and Kiparsky's factive predicates, which render their complements factive, she suggests that epistemic operators ''project'' a property of incompleteness on their complements. The comparison appears to be misguided. Factive predicates indeed seem to make the sentences that they take as their complements factive, but epistemic operators apparently cannot make their complements incomplete. On the contrary, they have to ''select'' complements which are already incomplete, that is, either stative, or marked as progressive, habitual etc..

Chapter 8 on diachrony should have made mention of Traugott and Dasher (2001). Traugott's position is identified by P with her 1989 paper, but chapter 3 of the 2001 book gives a more developed and explicit scenario of change in modal meaning. From the list of references it becomes apparent, however, that the actual writing of the book must have stopped at some point in 2001. It was accepted as a PhD thesis written in Italian in 2003, and the English translation has come out in 2005, apparently without any update. I wish I would not have to mention this, but typos, grammatical and stylistic errors are pervasive to an extent that I cannot remember to have seen in any book published by Benjamins. I'll give a few examples: ''expressd'' (p. 11), ''you my [may?] have been tired'', ''is specular [peculiar?] to the behaviour'' (p. 172), ''It has been submitted [suggested?] in this chapter'' (p. 205).

Throughout the book spaces are missing after punctuation marks, and in some places there are two spaces instead of one. Some typos may seriously hamper understanding, e.g.: '''more direct' is 'less reliable''' (p. 101) should read '''more direct' is 'more reliable''', or, ''This entails the Italian system being strongly oriented towards the epistemic pole of the epistemic-evidential axis'' (p. 107), where the author in fact means ''the evidential pole of the epistemic-evidential axis''. It appears that the book was not proofread prior to publication. In fact, the introduction does not mention any proofreading.

It is the task of any review to be critical and point out potential problems. In this review I have mentioned several such problems. They should not distract from the fact that overall this book is a very valuable contribution to the discussion on modality from a functional perspective, which in some parts presents data that should be of interest to anyone researching modality. In the opening chapters, the author reveals a good instinct for topics which are currently relevant in the discussion on modality. In chapters 6 and 7 she comes up with an in-depth analysis of the relationship between modality and other grammatical categories, particularly aspectuality, resulting in the presentation of intriguing data and hypotheses.

Heiko Narrog is an associate professor at Tohoku University, Japan. His research interests include historical linguistics, syntax and semantics, modality, linguistic typology, and the Japanese language.